See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262408826

Theory-Building with System Dynamics: Principles and Practices

Conference Paper  in  Lecture Notes in Computer Science · February 2005

DOI: 10.1007/11556985_10 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

9 180

2 authors:

Markus Schwaninger Thomas K. Hamann

University of St.Gallen University of Liechtenstein
196 PUBLICATIONS   2,659 CITATIONS    18 PUBLICATIONS   37 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dynamics of Innovative Systems View project

Electronic Waste View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas K. Hamann on 23 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Diskussionspapier

Theory-Building with System Dynamics - Principles and Practices

Markus Schwaninger / Thomas K. Hamann

Nr. 50 - May 2005

Universität St. Gallen

Hochschule für Wirtschafts-, Rechts-
und Sozialwissenschaften
 Theory-Building with System Dynamics

Theory-Building with System Dynamics: Principles and Practices

Markus Schwaninger1
Thomas K. Hamann2
1
University of St. Gallen, Switzerland
2
McKinsey & Company, Inc., Munich, Germany

Abstract. System Dynamics is a discipline for the modeling, simulation and control of complex dynamic
systems. In this contribution, the methodology of System Dynamics-based modeling is argued to be a
powerful and rigorous approach to theory-building. The strength of the pertinent process of theory
development lies in its high standards for model validation, and in a combination of abductive reasoning with
induction and deduction. The argument of the paper is underpinned by an application of System Dynamics to
the elaboration of a theory in the new field of Cultural Dynamics.

1. Introduction: Theory-Building in Perspective

Theory-building, in principle, is more than an exercise in academic abstractions. It is an activity fundamental
to the survival of societies, organizations and even individuals. Constructing a model, in the sense in which it is
used here, consists in building and mathematically formalizing a theory in order to orientate action. It is a device
for coping with whatever is complex. As complexity in our time tends to be of a high degree, and often growing,
the quest for better theories is a necessity for both academics and practitioners.
Essentially, three different modes of scientific inquiry can be distinguished, namely, deductive, inductive, and
abductive (Peirce, 1878). Adopting a deductive research approach entails concluding upon a particular statement
derived from theories or laws considered to be universal truths, whereas inductive inquiry involves deriving
universal theories or laws from particular observations. Finally, by researching in the abductive mode, possible
explanations or interpretations of observed facts are provided, i.e., one generates an understanding of the
fundamental driving forces and structures of the phenomenon under consideration. Characteristic outcomes of
abductive reasoning are explanatory principles and theories obtained by looking beyond the facts observed in
similar cases, thereby taking the longest step of all three modes of scientific inquiry towards the generation of
new knowledge. In order to overcome the limitations of each approach, researchers have tried to combine the
different modes of theory-building. This is often found to be difficult, or biased in one direction or the other.
Hence, there is a need for rigorous theory-building approaches which balance out the trade-off between the
quests for genuinely new insights, conceptual stringency, and empirical soundness.
In this contribution it is demonstrated that the methodology of System Dynamics offers a particularly
powerful process and technique for effective theory-building in order to improve decision-making in the context
of organizations and society. This methodology is designed to achieve an understanding of the fundamental
driving forces and structures underlying a problematic mode of behavior, as well as conceptual and empirical
rigor.

2. Theory-Building with System Dynamics

System Dynamics is a discipline for the modeling, simulation and control of complex dynamic systems,
founded by Jay W. Forrester (1961, 1968). A main feature of the SD modeling approach is that the issue
modeled is represented by closed feedback loops made up of essentially two kinds of variables – stocks and
flows – supplemented by parameters and auxiliary variables. Representation in the form of multiple closed loops,
as well as the consideration of delays, enable realistic modeling, which brings the endogenous dynamics
generated by the system itself to the fore. Moreover, counterintuitive system behaviors (Forrester 1971)
generated in the simulations can lead to important insights for model users.
The methodology of SD is centered around a process which combines modeling and simulation iteratively,
thus leading to a continuous improvement of model quality and insights into the domain or issue modeled. Other
authors have emphasized the role of modeling as a vehicle for learning, in particular group learning, e.g., Lane
(1994) and Vennix (1996).

1
 Theory-Building with System Dynamics

Challenging and validating (theoretically and empirically) the model and policies

Identifying
Gathering and Formulating Mapping the Providing in-
and Modeling and
describing a dynamic causal loop sights applica-
framing simulating
empirical data hypothesis structure ble for action
the issue
Content • Describing the • Analyzing • Reviewing • Specifying and • Defining the
present situation potential additional documenting criteria for
dynamically causes of the relevant the model evaluating the
• Defining the problem literature • Specifying policy design
purpose and the dynamically • Integrating the various • Assessing
object of the • Generating an isolated scenarios alternative
analysis initial dynamic theoretical • Running policies
• Formulating the hypothesis results of simulations • Deriving
research • Identifying the previous • Visualizing and normative
question(s) key elements of research to a analyzing the recommen-
the theory/ holistic and simulation dations on
model to be consistent results policy imple-
developed theoretical body mentation
Intermediate/ • Reference • Dynamic • Causal loop • Stock and flow • List of criteria
end products behavior pattern hypothesis diagram map for policy
(set of graphs) • High-level • Computer evaluation
• Purpose system diagram simulation • Action plan
statement model
• Research • Report of
question(s) simulation
results
Source: Own representation following High Performance Systems, Inc. (1994) and Sterman (2000)

Figure 1: Ideal-typical scheme of an SD-based theory-building process

We take a new view by conceiving of modeling and simulation as a powerful approach to theory-building.
Figure 1 depicts an ideal-typical scheme of that process. Even though this is a general scheme, the process
represented therein is essentially a theory-building process with the sequence of formulating a proposition, then
testing it, expanding or refining the proposition, and proceeding with further tests, etc.
The starting point is a framing of the issue at hand, including a rough definition of the scope and purpose of
the model to be developed. The ensuing collection of empirical data arranged via a first view of reference
patterns then supports the clarification of the goals and the formulation of the research questions to be answered.
Proceeding from this, a dynamic hypothesis can be formed which explains the unfolding of the reference
behavior pattern over time. Besides empirical data, this dynamic hypothesis is also based on theoretical concepts
and constructs which result from previous research efforts. The core of the theory-building process thus consists
in elaborating a theory by drawing on that dynamic hypothesis as well as testing, corroborating or refuting it.
Model quality is successively enhanced and explanation deepened along the path of this iterative process.
In the following, the theory-building along the various stages of this process will be illustrated by instancing
the generation of a holistic and consistent theory about the development of individuals’ musical tastes, especially
their preference for classical music.

3. Application: The Case of Cultural Dynamics

Identifying and framing the issue: For the long-term success of all kinds of enterprises – and hence also
orchestras - it is crucial to discover and take opportunities as early as possible as well as to detect and avoid
potential threats before they become uncontrollable. Therefore, the anticipative capturing of future realities by
interpreting weak signals of external developments is important and might even be critical for the long-term
survival of an organization (Ansoff 1975).
Various samples of relevant data collected by Hamann (2005) suggested that the classical music audience in
Germany and Switzerland has a disproportionate number of elderly people when compared to the population as a
whole (significance level = 0.001). This is a weak signal. In order to determine whether it indicates a potential
threat to German and Swiss orchestras, the causes for the extremely high proportions of elderly people in
classical music audiences needed to be understood properly. Unfortunately, the implications of the weak signal
for the future size of such audiences and the resulting demand for live performances of classical music remained
unclear, since there was no theory about the formation of individuals’ affinity with classical music.
Gathering and describing empirical data: Further analyses of time series of relevant data published by the
Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach (1994-2002) suggest that the proportion of people older than 59 years of age
among those who frequently listened to classical music increased between 1994 and 2002 by 47 percent (from
31.8 to 46.8 percent of the total). During the same time-span, the number of classical music listeners relative to

2
 Theory-Building with System Dynamics

the number of pop music listeners decreased by 9 percent. Therefore, the research question to be answered by the
study was: “Why is the classical music audience aging faster than the population as a whole, and why is it
decreasing in size?”
Formulating a dynamic hypothesis: As one possible explanation for the behavior pattern recognized, the
following dynamic hypothesis was formulated: The development of basic musical taste regarding the various
general types of music, e.g., classical music, jazz, pop/rock music, folk music, etc., takes place in a socialization
phase during adolescence.
After that phase, the basic musical taste of an individual remains more or less the same into later life – apart
from a negligibly small number of people changing genre. With pop and rock emerging in the 1950s and 60s,
young people have increasingly been socialized under the influence of these new types of music. Consequently,
the proportions of classical music listeners have been falling from a high level with each succeeding younger
cohort, which is due rather to genuine cohort differences in participation than to any function of demographic
and life-stage factors. This means that the classical music audience will dwindle and die out if no appropriate
counteractive measures are taken very soon.
Mapping the causal loop structure: In the next stage of the SD-based theory-building process, the results of
previous research relevant to the question as to how music preferences develop were reviewed. The existing
research results were thoroughly tested for inconsistencies. Since hardly any contradictions could be identified,
the isolated theoretical results of previous research were put together like pieces of a puzzle, finally adding up to
a holistic and consistent body of theory. We concluded that the extent to which activities with musical relevance
are put into practice (repeatedly listening to classical music, playing an instrument, and attending appreciation
classes) during the socialization phase in an individual’s adolescence determines his or her fundamental musical
orientation with regard to classical music in later life. The reason is that such activities enhance the development
of “listening competence”, i.e., what Behne (1997, p. 151) calls the “cognitive components (‘concentrated’ and
‘distancing’)” of listening. This theory on the development of individuals’ basic musical taste was represented by
means of a causal loop diagram (Hamann 2005: 199).
Modeling and simulating: An SD model is a mathematically formalized version of a theory. According to
Diekmann (2000), there are several reasons for modeling quantitatively: First, it conduces to higher precision of
the theory, e.g., by specifying the connections between variables as algebraic functions. Secondly, hypotheses
can be derived mathematically from formalized theories by which new and surprising insights are often gained.
Thirdly, a model allows of testing the theoretical assumptions for inconsistencies in a more stringent fashion and
facilitates checking the deduction for errors. Therefore, the theory developed so far was specified as a
quantitative model, and many simulations were run. The simulations clearly corroborated the dynamic
hypothesis. In addition, deeper insights into the issues under study were gained, which enabled the elaboration of
well-founded recommendations for the management of orchestras.
Challenging and validating the model (theoretically and empirically): In theory-building, the quality and
robustness of the theoretical propositions developed, i.e., “scientific rigour”, should be the principal concern.
We are taking Karl Raimund Popper's (1959) logic of scientific discovery – essentially a concept of an
evolutionary progress of science – as a benchmark for the design of the theory-building process. This implies
that any proposition must be formulated in such a way that it can be disproved if confronted with reality. In other
words: it must be proposed in such a way that it can be falsified. The reason for this demand for refutability is
that science is advanced by bold propositions or guesses to be subjected to a barrage of criticism. Only
hypotheses capable of clashing with facts are regarded as scientifically legitimate.
Thus, every single equation of the model, i.e., propositions regarding causal relationships, had to be carefully
examined by drawing on additional theoretical and empirical data. The ability of the model to reproduce the
reference behavior pattern is not sufficient. Moreover, as Barlas (1996, p. 186) expresses it, “a system dynamics
model must generate the ‘right output behavior for the right reasons’”, i.e., the internal structure of the model has
to be valid as well. Hence, the model structure was tested by comparing the model structure with the knowledge
about the structure of the real system (direct structure tests) as well as by testing the behavior patterns generated
by the model (indirect structure tests). In a concrete example of a structure test, the proportion of women of
child-bearing age (i.e., between 15 and 45) was assumed to be approximately constant over time. Empirical data
provided by the Federal Statistical Office in Germany revealed that this proportion actually remained within the
very narrow range between 48.5 and 48.9 percent during the time-span from 1978 to 2002. Therefore, the so-
called parameter-confirmation test (as part of the indirect structure tests) was considered to have been passed.
Finally, the behavior replication tests were not applied before each of the various forms of structure test had
been passed. One of the typical tests in this category was a comparison of the time series based on the statistical

3
 Theory-Building with System Dynamics

data about the evolution of the German population in the different age brackets, with the simulated values based
on the SD model. The difference between the two is represented in the following formula:
2000
D= ∫
t =1980
a (t ) − s (t ) dt ,

where a is the actual development, s designates the simulated results and D a measure for the divergence
between the two. The subsequent aim was to find a value for s(t) for which
2000
D = Dmin = min
s ∫
t =1980
a (t ) − s (t ) dt .

The test was regarded as having been passed only when the difference was no longer significant.
Modes of scientific inquiry applied: In the first two stages of SD-based theory-building, the dominant
approach is inductive research: First, from particular observations limited to the sample size the age structure of
all classical music listeners in Germany and Switzerland respectively, an imbalance was inferred. Secondly, the
time series analyzed covered the period from 1994 to 2002. The formulation of the (initial) dynamic hypothesis
clearly puts it into the category of abductive research: Eventually, the observed facts were interpreted and
explanatory principles obtained by looking beyond the data, which is the very essence of the abductive approach.
Finally, integrating the existing theoretical research results into a consistent theory is a deductive process. This is
because particular statements regarding the development of an affinity with classical music are concluded from
existing theories which are considered to be universally true. In turn, these theories were accepted as universal
truths after they had been inferred inductively from particular empirical observations and had withstood a variety
of attempts at falsification. This makes it clear that the different modes of scientific inquiry are inextricably
bound up together when one is generating theories based on SD methodology.

4. Conclusions
Theory-building is more than an exercise for academics. It is also an indispensable device for practitioners in
organizations, allowing them to test their assumptions and bring their speculations down to earth in order to
make better decisions. That is why theory-building is a fundamental prerequisite for effective action.
The SD methodology is a powerful and rigorous approach to the development of theories. This is underpinned
by its exceptionally high validation standards: Bold guesses, i.e. abductive theory-building, first crystallize in
theory, the model then being submitted to numerous tests. Among the methodologies for the modeling of social
systems, none, as far as we know, has validation standards as strict as those for SD. For instance, econometrics
operates essentially with statistical validation procedures. In SD, the standard procedure for model validation
also involves statistical tests, e.g., the comparison of time-series of data representing the object system versus
those generated by the simulation. In order to avoid a model’s being considered right for the wrong reasons, SD
validation includes a whole set of obligatory procedures designed to build up confidence in a model (see: Barlas
1996, Sterman 2000). The abductively acquired elements of the theories therefore do not remain merely
speculative, without empirical corroboration.
We have reported an application of SD to the construction of a theory of Cultural Dynamics, from which
substantial insights and recommendations for the management of cultural institutions have been derived. Other
cases in point have already been published, e.g., Ulli-Beer (2004) and Kopainsky (2005).
The SD methodology for modeling, simulation and control is in line with the concepts of evolutionary theory-
building as proposed by the theory of science. It must be added, however, that it is also highly appropriate for
applications, owing to its intuitive techniques and the user-friendly software available.
Summing up, one may say that the potential of SD as a methodology for theory-building is exceedingly high.

4
 Theory-Building with System Dynamics

References
Ansoff, I. (1975): Managing Strategic Surprise by Response to Weak Signals. In: California Management
Review, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 21-33.
Barlas, Y. (1996): Formal Aspects of Model Validity and Validation in System Dynamics. System Dynamics
Review, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 183 210.
Behne, K.E. (1997): The Development of “Musikerleben” in Adolescence: How and Why Young People
Listen to Music. In: Deliège, I. & Sloboda, J. (eds.): Perception and Cognition of Music. Hove: Psychology
Press.
Diekmann, A. (2000): Empirische Sozialforschung: Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen. Reinbek bei
Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag.
Forrester, J.W. (1961): Industrial Dynamics. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Forrester, J.W. (1968): Principles of Systems. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Forrester, J.W. (1971): Counterintuitive Behavior of Social Systems. In: Technology Review, Vol. 73, No. 3,
pp. 52-68.
Hamann, T.K. (2005): Cultural Dynamics: Zur langfristigen Existenzsicherung von Kulturorchestern in
Deutschland und der Schweiz. Bamberg: Difo-Druck, doctoral dissertation of the University of St. Gallen.
High Performance Systems, Inc. (1994): STELLA II: An Introduction to Systems Thinking. Lebanon, N.H.:
High Performance Systems, Inc.
Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach (1994-2002): AWA: Allensbacher Marktanalyse/Werbeträgeranalyse.
Allensbach: Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach.
Kopainsky, B. (2005): A System Dynamics Analysis of Socio-economic Development in Lagging Swiss
Regions, Aachen: Shaker-Verlag.
Lane, D.C. (1994): Modeling as Learning: A Consultancy Methodology for Enhancing Learning in
Management Teams. In: Morecroft, J.D.W./Sterman, J.D. (eds.): Modeling for Learning Organizations.
Portland, Oregon: Productivity Press, pp. 85-117.
Peirce, C.S. (1878): Deduction, Induction and Hypothesis. In: Popular Science Monthly, No. 13, pp. 470-482.
Popper, K.R. (1959): The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sterman, J.D. (2000): Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World.
Boston, Mass.: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Ulli-Beer, S. (2004): Citizens' Choice and Public Policy : a System Dynamics Model for Recycling
Management at the Local Level, Ph.D. dissertation No. 2918, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Vennix, J.A.M. (1996): Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System Dynamics.
Chichester: Wiley.

5
 Theory-Building with System Dynamics

Liste der seit Januar 1993 am Institut für Betriebswirtschaft erschienenen

Diskussionsbeiträge
Papers which have appeared since 1993

Nr. 1 Krüger, W./Müller-Stewens, G. - Matching Acquisition Policy and Integration Style,

St. Gallen, Januar 1993
Nr. 2 Müller-Stewens, G./Spickers, J. - Akquisitionsmanagement als Organisation des Wandels, St.
Gallen, Januar 1993
Nr. 3 Gomez, P./Rüegg-Stürm, J. - Controlling im Dienste der Wertsteigerung der Unternehmung,
St. Gallen, Januar 1993
Nr. 4 Strasser, G. - Wissensmanagement - Forschungsprojekt zur Handhabung fundamentalen
Wandels in grossen Unternehmen, St. Gallen, November 1993
Nr. 5 Strasser, G. - Die Bedeutung soziologischen Wissens bei der empirischen Analyse
organisatorischer Lernprozesse, St. Gallen, Januar 1994
Nr. 6 Strasser, G. - Wandel, Lernen von Organisationen, Wissensmanagement, St. Gallen, Januar
1994
Nr. 7 Strasser, G. - The New Winners?-Project: Engendering, Enhancing and Measuring
Fundamental Corporate Transformation Processes, St. Gallen, April 1994
Nr. 8 Malioukova, I./Strasser, G. - Bericht einer Interviewanalyse: Brauchen Unternehmen
Revolutionen? St. Gallen, April 1994
Nr. 9 Weber, B. - Unternehmensnetzwerke aus systemtheoretischer Sicht, St. Gallen, Juni 1994
Nr. 10 Schwaninger, M. - Stand der Entwicklung und Tendenzen der Managementforschung. Ein
Beitrag aus systemtheoretischer Sicht, St. Gallen, Juli 1994
Nr. 11 Schwaninger, M. - Control - A Systems Perspective, St. Gallen, August 1994
Nr. 12 Schüppel, J. - Organisationslernen und Wissensmanagement, St. Gallen, August 1994
Nr. 13 Strasser, G. - Wandel von Unternehmen und Revolution - Variationen über eine radikale
Vorstellung von Veränderungen im grossen Unternehmen, St. Gallen, September 1994
Nr. 14 Schwaninger, M. - Die intelligente Organisation als lebensfähige Heterarchie, St. Gallen,
September 1994
Nr. 15 Binder, V./Kantowsky, J. - Potentialorientiertes Management - Eine Standortbestimmung, St.
Gallen, Februar 1995
Nr. 16 Schüppel, J. - Das „MB-Erfolgsprogramm“ bei der Mercedes-Benz AG - Fallstudie,
St. Gallen, Mai 1995
Nr. 17 Schwaninger, M. - Lernende Unternehmungen - Strukturen für organisationale Intelligenz
und Kreativität, St. Gallen, Oktober 1995
Nr. 18 Schwaninger, M./Espejo, R. - Recursive Management: A Key to Organizational Fitness, St.
Gallen, November 1995
Nr. 19 Schwaninger, M. - Systemtheorie - Eine Einführung für Führungskräfte, Wirtschafts- und
Sozialwissenschafter, St. Gallen, 2. Auflage Januar 1998
Nr. 20 Schwaninger, M. - Structures for Intelligent Organizations, St. Gallen, February 1996
Nr. 21 Müller-Stewens, G./Aschwanden C. - Überlegungen zur Rolle der Informations-technologie
im Aufgabengebiet von Führungskräften, St. Gallen, April 1996
Nr. 22 Schwaninger, M. - Integrative Systems Methodology: Framework and Application,
St. Gallen, June 1996
Nr. 23 Kriwet, C./von Krogh G.F. - Corporate Ethnography, St. Gallen, November 1996

6
 Theory-Building with System Dynamics

Nr. 24 von Krogh G.F./Mahnke, V. - Managing Knowledge in International Allicances, St. Gallen,
April 1997
Nr. 25 Müller-Stewens, G./Radel, T. - Allianzensysteme als Spieler auf dem globalen
Telekommunikationsmarkt: Kampf der Giganten oder emperors without empires?,
St. Gallen, Juli 1997
Nr. 25 (e) Müller-Stewens, G./Radel, T. - Battle of the Giants: The Evolution of Global Alliances in the
Telecommunications Industry, St. Gallen, revised and translated 2nd ed., May 1998
Nr. 26 Müller-Stewens, G./Radel, T. - Branchendynamik und Veränderungsnotwendigkeit: Das
Beispiel der Telekommunikationsbranche, St. Gallen, Juli 1997
Nr. 27 Mahnke, V.- What is Knowledge-Intensive Business and What is not? Developing the base-
case of a strategic theory of the firm that relates knowledge to above normal returns, St.
Gallen, August 1997
Nr. 28 Aadne, J.H./Kleine, D./Mahnke, V./Venzin, M. - In Search of Inspiration: How managers,
consultants and academics interact while exploring business strategy concepts, St. Gallen,
October 1997
Nr. 29 Schwaninger, M. - Bausteine für ein Unternehmungsmodell, St. Gallen, November 1997
Nr. 30 Mahnke, V. - Knowledge-Intensive Business as Puzzlement for Contractual Theories of the
Firm, St. Gallen, Dezember 1997
[Nr. 31 Schwaninger, M. - Intelligent Organizations – The Ecological Dimension, St. Gallen,
October 1998 - nicht erschienen]
Nr. 32 Schwaninger, M. - Are Organizations Too Complex To Be Understood? - Towards a
Framework for Intelligent Organizations, St. Gallen, October 1998
Nr. 33 Müller-Stewens, G./Lechner, Ch. - Strategische Prozessforschung: Zentrale Fragestellungen
und Entwicklungstendenzen, St. Gallen, August 1999
Nr. 34 Szeless, G./Wiersema, M.F./Müller-Stewens, G. - Relatedness and Firm Performance in
European Firms: A Comparison of Related Entropy and Resource-Based Relatedness,
St. Gallen, January 2000
Nr. 35 Schwaninger, M. - Das Modell Lebensfähiger Systeme. Ein Strukturmodell für
organisationale Intelligenz, Lebensfähigkeit und Entwicklung, Mai 2000
Nr. 36 + e Rüegg-Stürm, J. - Was ‚ist‘ eine Unternehmung? - nicht mehr als DB erhältlich, fand Eingang
in die Publikation „Das neue St. Galler Management-Modell. Grundkategorien einer
integrierten Managementlehre: Der HSG-Ansatz“, Bern: Haupt 2002. ISBN 3-258-06534-9.
Entglisch: The New St. Gallen Management Model. Basic Categories of an Approach to
Integrated Management, New York: Palgrave McMillan, 2005 ISBN 1-4039-3631-5. Erhältlich
in Buchhandlungen
Nr. 37 Schwaninger, M./Körner, M. - Managing Complex Development Projects: A Systemic
Toolkit Based on the St. Gall Management Framework, November 2000
Nr. 38 Schwaninger, M. - A Theory for Optimal Organization, November 2000
Nr. 39 Spickers, J./Lechner, Ch. - Kernkompetenzen und organisationale Fähigkeiten als
Management-Herausforderung. Diskussionsbeitrag Nr. 39, Dezember 2000 (nicht
erschienen)
Nr. 40 Spickers, J./Strasser, G. - Leitfaden zur systemischen Diagnose der Befindlichkeit von
Organisationen - ein Beitrag zur Operationalisierung von „Unternehmenskultur“.
Diskussionsbeitrag Nr. 40, Dezember 2000 (nicht erschienen)
Nr. 41 Schwaninger, M. - Implizites Wissen und Managementlehre: Organisationskybernetische
Sicht, November 2000
Nr. 42 Rüegg-Stürm, J. /Gritsch, L. – Ungewissheit und Stabilitiät in Veränderungsprozessen. Zur
Bedeutung von Ritualen in tiefgreifenden Veränderungsprozessen von Unternehmungen,
März 2001
Nr. 43 Schwaninger, M./Körner M. – Systemisches Projektmanagement: ein Instrumentarium für
komplexe Veränderungs- und Entwicklungsprojekte, September 2001
 Theory-Building with System Dynamics

Nr. 44 Enkel, E./Gibbert M./Makarevitch, A./Vassiliadis, St. – Vol. 1: Innovation/Knowledge

Creation, Customer Integration and Entering New Ventures (Editors: Back, A. and von
Krogh, G.), July 2002
Nr. 45 Enkel, E./Gibbert M./Makarevitch, A./Vassiliadis, St. – Vol. 2: Boundaries of the Firm:
Barriers within the company and at the integration of mergers and acquisitions (Editors:
Back, A. and von Krogh, G.), July 2002
Nr. 46 Makarevitch, A./Enkel, E. – Vol. 3: New Ventures – important concepts and theories
(Editors: Back, A. and von Krogh, G.), July 2002

Nr. 47 Grzegorz, G./Rumyantseva, M./Enkel, E. – Vol. 4: Customer Integration - Establish a

constant bilateral knowledge flow (Editors: Back, A. and von Krogh, G.), July 2002

Nr. 48 Rumyantseva, M./Grzegorz, G./Enkel, E. – Volume 5: Knowledge Integration after Mergers

& Acquisitions (Editors: Back, A. and von Krogh, G.), July 2002

Nr. 49 Rüegg-Stürm, J. – Kulturwandel in komplexen Organisationen, März 2003

Nr. 50 Schwaninger, M./Hamann, Thomas K.: Theory-Building with System Dynamics - Principles and
Practices, May 2005

Nr. 51 Schwaninger M./Körner M. - Integratives Management von Organisations- und

Veränderungsprojekten, Juni 2005

Nr. 52 Schwaninger M. - System Dynamics and the Evolution of the Systems Movement - A
Historical Perspective, June 2005
Nr. 53 Schmidt, S.L.: Comparative Strategy Process Research: A Methodological Approach, July
2005
 Theory-Building with System Dynamics

Die folgenden Arbeitspapiere entstanden im Rahmen des Projektes KnowledgeSource in Zusammenarbeit von
Wissenschafterinnen und Wissenschaftern des IWI-HSG - Institut for Information Management - und des IfB -
Institute of Management an der HSG.
Sie können solange Vorrat unter Tel. 0041 (0)71 224 2542, Fax 0041 (0)71224 2716 zum Preis von CHF 30.--
bezogen werden. Adresse: KnowledgeSource, IWI-HSG, Müller-Friedberg-Str. 8, CH-9000 St. Gallen
Seufert A.; Back, A.; von Krogh, G.: Towards a Reference Model for Knowledge Networking
Bericht BE HSG / IWI3 Nr. 5, Version 1.0 vom 16.12.1999
Raimann, J.; Köhne, M.; Seufert A.; Back, A.; von Krogh, G.: Knowledge Networks: a Tools Perspective
Bericht BE HSG / IWI3 Nr. 6, Version 1.1 vom 17.03.2000
Vassiliadis, S.; Gysin, K.; Seufert A.; von Krogh, G., Back, A.: Dealing with Knowledge Assets
Bericht BE HSG / IWI3 Nr. 7, Version 1.0 vom 16.12.1999
Köhne, M.; Raimann, J.; Seufert A.; von Krogh, G., Back, A.: The Influence of Human Networks and Human
Value Systems on Knowledge Sharing/Transfer Projects
Bericht BE HSG / IWI3 Nr. 8, Version 1.0 vom 16.12.1999
Seufert A.; Back, A.; von Krogh, G.: A Vision for Knowledge Networking
Bericht BE HSG / IWI3 Nr. 10, Version 1.0 vom 16.12.1999
Vassiliadis, S.; Wicki, Y.; Seufert A.; von Krogh, G., Back, A.: Knowledge Networks: Linking Knowledge
Management to Business Strategy
Bericht BE HSG / IWI3 Nr. 11, Version 1.0 vom 16.12.1999
Vassiliadis, S.; Köhne, M.; Seufert A.; von Krogh, G., Back, A.: Strategic deployment of networks for
Knowledge Management: When to choose the network option
Bericht BE HSG / IWI3 Nr. 13, Version 1.0 vom 17.03.2000
Raimann, J.; Enkel, E.; Seufert A.; Back, A.; von Krogh, G.: Supporting Business Processes through Knowledge
Management – A Technology-based Analysis
Bericht BE HSG / IWI3 Nr. 14, Version 1.0 vom 17.03.2000
Vassiliadis, S.; Seufert A.; von Krogh, G., Back, A.: Competing with Intellectual Capital:Theoretical
Background
Bericht BE HSG / IWI3 Nr. 15, Version 1.0 vom 17.03.2000

Institut für Betriebswirtschaft

Institute of Management
University of St. Gallen (HSG)
Dufourstr. 40A CH – 9000 St. Gallen
Phone 0041 (0)71 224 23 60
Fax 0041 (0)71 224 23 55
For download see: http://www.ifb.unisg.ch/Publikationen

View publication stats